New book another blow to the black race
Options
Comments
-
The audacity of these folks to even suggest a superiority to Yahwah people? The ? moors taught you to stop sleeping with farm animals. That was a lil more than a thousand years but some of y'all still doing it.
-
I'm trying to figure out how you see this as "another blow to the black race".
-
TS is doing a good job developing his "But...but...what do white people think of us?" schtick. We don't care bruh.
-
A Talented One wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »There is nothing dense about what I'm saying. I haven't read the book, only the synopsis. You're adding ? in that's not in the synopsis. The book is making an argument for the existence of biological races, which itself is controversial. It isn't, from what I see, ranking races in the way you suggest. You're basing that opinion on something outside the scope of the research being presented, current socioeconomic realities. Again, I haven't read the book so I don't know what his ultimate conclusions are, but just based on the synopsis, he clearly isn't trying to prove one race is better than the other. The only reason the book is controversial is because it suggests races actually exist and that would open the door for others to try and draw conclusions about the superiority or inferiority of certain races.
You're not reading the synopsis carefully; the book is saying more than that race is real.Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory.
Inconveniently, as Nicholas Wade argues in A Troublesome Inheritance, the consensus view cannot be right. And in fact, we know that populations have changed in the past few thousand years—to be lactose tolerant, for example, and to survive at high altitudes. Race is not a bright-line distinction; by definition it means that the more human populations are kept apart, the more they evolve their own distinct traits under the selective pressure known as Darwinian evolution. For many thousands of years, most human populations stayed where they were and grew distinct, not just in outward appearance but in deeper senses as well.
Wade, the longtime journalist covering genetic advances for The New York Times, draws widely on the work of scientists who have made crucial breakthroughs in establishing the reality of recent human evolution. The most provocative claims in this book involve the genetic basis of human social habits. What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—have been slowly but surely inculcated genetically within agrarian societies, Wade argues. These “values” obviously had a strong cultural component, but Wade points to evidence that agrarian societies evolved away from hunter-gatherer societies in some crucial respects. Also controversial are his findings regarding the genetic basis of traits we associate with intelligence, such as literacy and numeracy, in certain ethnic populations, including the Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews.
Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples. He also believes that science is best served by pursuing the truth without fear, and if his mission to arrive at a coherent summa of what the new genetic science does and does not tell us about race and human history leads straight into a minefield, then so be it. This will not be the last word on the subject, but it will begin a powerful and overdue conversation.
In any case, read a book review. He is clearly saying that some races are inferior to others.
I'm starting to question your reading comprehension. This thread implies that this book spells out something bad for Black people. Show me in that synopsis where it mentions Black people at all. The synopsis only says that race exists and that there are some traits that we associate with culture that may be dictated by genetics. It doesn't even say that those things are delineated by race. It's clearly talking about populations and/or samples which in this case are not the same as race. Chinese is not a race. Ashkenazi Jews are not a race. And a lot of the same people (including that Tiger lady) that extort those groups as being higher than others, also place some African groups on that level too. So I'm not saying I agree with what this guy is presenting. I'm just saying that you're exaggerating the significance of his claims as it relates to what it means for Black people. -
Swiffness! wrote: »As a statistician and political scientist, I see naivete in Wade’s quickness to assume a genetic association for any change in social behavior. For example, he writes that declining interest rates in England from the years 1400 to 1850 “indicate that people were becoming less impulsive, more patient, and more willing to save” and attributes this to “the far-reaching genetic consequences” of rich people having more children, on average, than poor people, so that “the values of the upper middle class” were “infused into lower economic classes and throughout society.”
..........
Uh huh.
This is lazy-ass "Correlation equals Causation" folk science at best, and a stealth argument for ? -style eugenics at worst.
Same ? , different day.
same ? that bio social criminologists are doing... -
The Iconoclast wrote: »Here's the thing, it will not. In fact it will not even come close to that. Due to the book's lack of support from the majority of the scientific community. One of the primary criticisms of the book is that it goes beyond scientific consensus. That's the great thing about peer review, it serves its purpose well.
However I'll humor you, I'll say for the sake of your argument it does:
1. How would you quantify the change in the entire white population espousing this belief?
2. How would you quantify said change's affect on such a broad abstract concept such as "status quo".
3. You'd be implying that only the views shared by the white population affects the status quo while the views shared by minorities have no affect. Obviously you'd have to quantify that premise as well.
Moving on from this hypothetical, it's important to note: The professional/academics in the scientific community only successfully appeal/lobby to policy makers and influence the court of public opinion, when there is a general consensus supporting something or there is a scientific breakthrough.
A "race" or social group's collective notions, regardless if they're backed by some form of data, can't pressure society to oppress another social group or "race" without the backing of the vast majority of the scientific community and the court of the public opinion on their side - two entities that contain representatives from all social groups and "races". That's a catch-22.
Theoretically speaking, it's virtually impossible in this day and age to even attempt to use science to oppress an entire social group or "race" let alone actually go through with it by enacting or reversing policies.
Every social group and "race" have far too many intelligent, credentialed people who are prominent figures in society who would be more than willing to lobby against any blatantly oppressive act that is launched upon the social group or "race" they identify with. Then you also have to account for the altruistic people of different social groups or "races" joining in to help any group being threatened by oppression.
The status quo is oppressive, so nothing has to be done. So anything that reinforces the status quo is bad for the race. And the beliefs that people have about the causes of racial inequality can be such as to make support for needed political reforms unlikely. (By the way, oppressive measures do not have to be "blatantly oppressive.")
Your comments about peer view are incredible. People, especially white people, are disposed to believe that we are inferior. So if a book comes along from a mainstream publisher, and written by an apparently respected NYT science reporter, purporting to show that our inferiority is supported by the recent findings of genetics, many are going to be inclined to believe it. Even if the book receives poor reviews in scientific journals, is criticized in edited collections, and by task forces established by scholarly organizations (all of which happened to The Bell Curve), the damage could already be done. (For more on The Bell Curve, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve.) It'd be like those politicians who make outrageously false claims, get a lot of media attention for them, and then is forced to retract them under pressure. Usually, many more people hear about the original false claims that the retraction.
As for your three questions:
1. Beliefs can be measured. Have you ever heard about opinion polls? In this case though, many people aren't likely to be honest about their beliefs.
2. You can ask people about their support for political reforms, though again it might be hard to isolate the effects of this book on their support. But this is really quibbling. Is it so hard to believe that white people could use books like these to reinforce their opposition to measures designed to help disadvantaged minorities? Are you serious?
3. Needed reforms require the support of whites and other non-blacks. -
At this point if you are black and you don't know what european society thinks of you then you really are inferior.
This book sounds like just more of the old. -
From the Slate review (quotations are from the book):
“In the early 1950s Ghana and South Korea had similar economies and levels of gross national product per capita. Some 30 years later, South Korea had become the 14th largest economy in the world, exporting sophisticated manufactures. Ghana had stagnated.” Wade approvingly quotes political scientist Samuel Huntington’s statement, “South Koreans valued thrift, investment, hard work, education, organization, and discipline. Ghanaians had different values.” And Wade attributes these attitudes toward thrift, investment, etc., to the Koreans’ East Asian genes.
...
As Wade puts it, “many countries with no resources, like Japan or Singapore, are very rich, while richly endowed countries like Nigeria tend to be quite poor. Iceland, covered in glaciers and frigid deserts, might seem less favorably situated than Haiti, but Icelanders are wealthy and Haitians beset by persistent poverty and corruption.”
-
yall should be ashamed of yallselves lettin th ese crackas tell yall how much yall worth
who is really surprised that crackas think ? are inferior
why are yall still arguing, ? these crackas
i dont pay attention to ? they say, we been past that -
A Talented One wrote: »From the Slate review (quotations are from the book):
“In the early 1950s Ghana and South Korea had similar economies and levels of gross national product per capita. Some 30 years later, South Korea had become the 14th largest economy in the world, exporting sophisticated manufactures. Ghana had stagnated.” Wade approvingly quotes political scientist Samuel Huntington’s statement, “South Koreans valued thrift, investment, hard work, education, organization, and discipline. Ghanaians had different values.” And Wade attributes these attitudes toward thrift, investment, etc., to the Koreans’ East Asian genes.
...
As Wade puts it, “many countries with no resources, like Japan or Singapore, are very rich, while richly endowed countries like Nigeria tend to be quite poor. Iceland, covered in glaciers and frigid deserts, might seem less favorably situated than Haiti, but Icelanders are wealthy and Haitians beset by persistent poverty and corruption.”
Well, anyone can write a book. It's amazing how uninformed people who are supposed to be "authorities" are. I mean if you were going to make the Haiti/Iceland comparison, he could have at least bothered to look up a little history. It would have taken all of five seconds to figure out why Haiti is where it is and Iceland is where it is.
Anyways, I guess you're right, this dude is on some straight eugenics ? , but he's doing it more poorly than I've ever seen it done, and that's saying a lot. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »TS is doing a good job developing his "But...but...what do white people think of us?" schtick. We don't care bruh.
This comment reflects a really troubling ignorance. Caring what white people think of us is a deep part of the tradition of black political thought. When Birth of a Nation was released in 1915 the NAACP "protested premieres of the film in numerous cities. It also conducted a public education campaign, publishing articles protesting the film's fabrications and inaccuracies, organizing petitions against it, and conducting education on the facts of the war and Reconstruction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation#Responses
I could point to numerous other examples, both from the past and more recently.
So what you're proposing is a shocking departure from black thinking going back hundreds of years.
Maybe you're thinking that we shouldn't care what they think about how we speak and dress and things like that. But that's one thing, whether they think we're intellectually and morally inferior is something else. -
The people flagging me looking real dumb right now. I mean all I am doing is bringing the book to y'all attention. Does the book exist? It sure does. And will many white people use it (just like they did The Bell Curve) to reinforce their opposition to measures designed to help disadvantaged minorities? Sure they will does.
So what's the problem?
-
Your entire argument is fallacious - centered around denying the antecedent fallacy to be exact. You're obviously for whatever reason, denying the existence of the fabric that our society is made up. You're completely denying that peer review has a purpose, you're completely denying that the if a theory isn't supported by the majority of the scientific community it will have no impact on policies. You also completely deny this fact:A Talented One wrote: »The Iconoclast wrote: »Here's the thing, it will not. In fact it will not even come close to that. Due to the book's lack of support from the majority of the scientific community. One of the primary criticisms of the book is that it goes beyond scientific consensus. That's the great thing about peer review, it serves its purpose well.
However I'll humor you, I'll say for the sake of your argument it does:
1. How would you quantify the change in the entire white population espousing this belief?
2. How would you quantify said change's affect on such a broad abstract concept such as "status quo".
3. You'd be implying that only the views shared by the white population affects the status quo while the views shared by minorities have no affect. Obviously you'd have to quantify that premise as well.
Moving on from this hypothetical, it's important to note: The professional/academics in the scientific community only successfully appeal/lobby to policy makers and influence the court of public opinion, when there is a general consensus supporting something or there is a scientific breakthrough.
A "race" or social group's collective notions, regardless if they're backed by some form of data, can't pressure society to oppress another social group or "race" without the backing of the vast majority of the scientific community and the court of the public opinion on their side - two entities that contain representatives from all social groups and "races". That's a catch-22.
Theoretically speaking, it's virtually impossible in this day and age to even attempt to use science to oppress an entire social group or "race" let alone actually go through with it by enacting or reversing policies.
Every social group and "race" have far too many intelligent, credentialed people who are prominent figures in society who would be more than willing to lobby against any blatantly oppressive act that is launched upon the social group or "race" they identify with. Then you also have to account for the altruistic people of different social groups or "races" joining in to help any group being threatened by oppression.
The status quo is oppressive, so nothing has to be done. So anything that reinforces the status quo is bad for the race. And the beliefs that people have about the causes of racial inequality can be such as to make support for needed political reforms unlikely. (By the way, oppressive measures do not have to be "blatantly oppressive.")
Your comments about peer view are incredible. People, especially white people, are disposed to believe that we are inferior. So if a book comes along from a mainstream publisher, and written by an apparently respected NYT science reporter, purporting to show that our inferiority is supported by the recent findings of genetics, many are going to be inclined to believe it. Even if the book receives poor reviews in scientific journals, is criticized in edited collections, and by task forces established by scholarly organizations (all of which happened to The Bell Curve), the damage could already be done. (For more on The Bell Curve, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve.) It'd be like those politicians who make outrageously false claims, gets a lot of media attention for them, and then is forced to retract them under pressure. Usually, many more people hear about the original false claims that the retraction.
As for your three questions:
1. Beliefs can be measured. Have you ever heard about opinion polls? In this case though, many people aren't likely to be honest about their beliefs.
2. You can ask people about their support for political reforms, though again it might be hard to isolate the effects of this book on their support. But this is really quibbling. Is it so hard to believe that white people could use books like these to reinforce their opposition to measures designed to help disadvantaged minorities? Are you serious?
3. Needed reforms require the support of whites and other non-blacks.
'A "race" or social group's collective notions, regardless if they're backed by some form of data, can't pressure society to oppress another social group or "race" without the backing of the vast majority of the scientific community and the court of the public opinion on their side - two entities that contain representatives from all social groups and "races". That's a catch-22.'
You apparently have an antiquated notion that whites can still oppress another social group/ "race" via stripping away established autonomy. The white hegemony gains all of its power from systemic measures that are already in place - which was created centuries ago; society has progressed to the point that we've limited every social group's ability to oppress another moving forward. Your entire argument is logically incoherent and repeating sensationalized rhetoric that invokes an appeal-to-authority fallacy by citing controversial books that don't represent the views of the majority.
For the record, not a single policy has been enacted/reformed due to citing The Bell Curve, which was created in 1994. Its influence has been solely academic (a nice topic of debate/discussion) and is only revered by white supremacists. People who use it to justify their prejudice, were already racist to begin with and were operating from a perspective fueled by confirmation bias.
Honestly, I've found myself agreeing with some of your posts in the past, but I don't understand what you're doing here. Why are you continuing to push this conclusory argument? Why are you trying to persuade people on this board to worry about scientific racism that's been around for centuries? By posting this and making such an outrageous thread title you're legitimizing this and perpetuating a racism fueled agenda. -
A Talented One wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »TS is doing a good job developing his "But...but...what do white people think of us?" schtick. We don't care bruh.
This comment reflects a really troubling ignorance. Caring what white people think of us is a deep part of the tradition of black political thought. When Birth of a Nation was released in 1915 the NAACP "protested premieres of the film in numerous cities. It also conducted a public education campaign, publishing articles protesting the film's fabrications and inaccuracies, organizing petitions against it, and conducting education on the facts of the war and Reconstruction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation#Responses
I could point to numerous other examples, both from the past and more recently.
So what you're proposing is a shocking departure from black thinking going back hundreds of years.
Maybe you're thinking that we shouldn't care what they think about how we speak and dress and things like that. But that's one thing, whether they think we're intellectually and morally inferior is something else.
Don't give a ? about either one. And ignorance implies that I'm not aware. It's apathy not ignorance. -
The Iconoclast wrote: »
Your entire argument is fallacious - centered around denying the antecedent fallacy to be exact. You're obviously for whatever reason, denying the existence of the fabric that our society is made up. You're completely denying that peer review has a purpose, you're completely denying that the if a theory isn't supported by the majority of the scientific community it will have no impact on policies. You also completely deny this fact:
'A "race" or social group's collective notions, regardless if they're backed by some form of data, can't pressure society to oppress another social group or "race" without the backing of the vast majority of the scientific community and the court of the public opinion on their side - two entities that contain representatives from all social groups and "races". That's a catch-22.'
You apparently have an antiquated notion that whites can still oppress another social group/ "race" via stripping away established autonomy. The white hegemony gains all of its power from systemic measures that are already in place - which was created centuries ago; society has progressed to the point that we've limited every social group's ability to oppress another moving forward. Your entire argument is logically incoherent and repeating sensationalized rhetoric that invokes an appeal-to-authority fallacy by citing controversial books that don't represent the views of the majority.
For the record, not a single policy has been enacted/reformed due to citing The Bell Curve, which was created in 1994. Its influence has been solely academic (a nice topic of debate/discussion) and is only revered by white supremacists. People who use it to justify their prejudice, were already racist to begin with and were operating from a perspective fueled by confirmation bias.
Honestly, I've found myself agreeing with some of your posts in the past, but I don't understand what you're doing here. Why are you continuing to push this conclusory argument? Why are you trying to persuade people on this board to worry about scientific racism that's been around for centuries? By posting this and making such an outrageous thread title you're legitimizing this and perpetuating a racism fueled agenda.
Listen man, I'm just about done with you. This post is sophomoric. It is clear that you don't know as much as you think you do.
It also shows that you're not reading my replies.
Still, let me try to give it one more go.
If a society has a legacy of past racial injustice in the form of current racial inequality, and leaves that legacy uncorrected for, then that is an oppressive situation. No new measures are required. (Though we know that racism and discrimination are still alive and well, which makes the situation worse.) So even if you are right that "society has progressed to the point that we've limited every social group's ability to oppress another moving forward," that is beside the point. (As an aside, you almost certainly are not right, but I won't argue the point.)
If no new measures are required for there to be an oppressive situation, it is irrelevant whether The Bell Curve has led to new policies being enacted. What is relevant is whether it is dampened support for corrective measures.
Now white support for measures designed to help disadvantaged minorities (e.g. affirmative action) has been declining for years. The people I read who study it (people like Lawrence Bobo) tell us that it is because they increasingly blame minorities for their situation. It is not farfetched to believe that books like The Bell Curve have added fuel to this way of thinking.
Generally, your post betrays all kinds of ignorance about the way public policy is made. To be honest, I don't have the time or the inclination to educate you. Suffice it to say, however, that public policy is more influenced by the thinking of a small number of politicians and policy types (people who work in think thanks and the like) than by anything that happens in the academy. (For you to say this after the recent turn to austerity policies, though most academic economists were against it, is a clear indication of your ignorance.) And The Bell Curve most certainly had an impact on these people.
Let me say something about why I'm saying all of this stuff, since it is apparently not obvious. I think black people have been losing the war of ideas for some time now (though the work of social scientists in the academy overwhelmingly support the conclusion that blacks are still disadvantaged in a number of ways). This thread is a call to arms, a call to join this war of ideas. It seems like for some white people, learning genetics to use against black people is almost like a kind of hobby. Well, I think we should be doing the same thing. (Also, and this kind of goes without saying, we should also study for advanced degrees in biology and related fields so that we have our people who can counter stuff like Wade's book.)
Lastly, although I called your post sophomoric, I hope you don't take it to heart. I don't know what stage you are in your education, but being sophomoric doesn't have to be a permanent condition. (I was once sophomoric, too.) As you learn more, it'll become apparent just how little you know. The key is to keep striving for knowledge. -
Wow, my OP is getting a ton of flags now. All for trying to get you all to be aware of this book and the potential damage that it could do, and so why we need to fight back.
It is almost unbelievable. It is almost like you are working for the white man himself. -
"
@A Talented One
You make some good points
vice president candidate paul ryan for instance was heavily influenced by the fictional novel atlas shrugged and its very apparent when u listen to him talk public policy
However I feel as though the majority of people who read and believe in this junk science were already heavily inclined to which is the real problem
-
desertrain10 wrote: »"
@A Talented One
You make some good points
vice president candidate paul ryan for instance was heavily influenced by the fictional novel atlas shrugged and its very apparent when u listen to him talk public policy
However I feel as though the majority of people who read and believe in this junk science were already heavily inclined to which is the real problem
I agree. I think people are predisposed to views claims like that favorably. But I think a strong opposition -- and not just in obscure journals that nobody reads -- could influence some of them.
-
A book discrediting any type of human race should not be advertise, discussed, and coaxed into reading. People can write any book they want; any form of literary expression...sure, but it is unwise and idiotic for an intelligent person to be a promoter of such.
It would behoove an intelligent person, not to promote such books but to write their own on positivity of any human race as they seem fit. There is no room for growth while spreading degrading one sided opinions as facts. -
Actually, it's good that books like this are written. It brings the issue into the spot light, and then when real experts come out and utterly destroy the authors, it makes it clear just how stupid the stance is.
-
A Talented One wrote: »
Listen man, I'm just about done with you. This post is sophomoric. It is clear that you don't know as much as you think you do.
It also shows that you're not reading my replies.
Still, let me try to give it one more go.
If a society has a legacy of past racial injustice in the form of current racial inequality, and leaves that legacy uncorrected for, then that is an oppressive situation. No new measures are required. (Though we know that racism and discrimination are still alive and well, which makes the situation worse.) So even if you are right that "society has progressed to the point that we've limited every social group's ability to oppress another moving forward," that is beside the point. (As an aside, you almost certainly are not right, but I won't argue the point.)
If no new measures are required for there to be an oppressive situation, it is irrelevant whether The Bell Curve has led to new policies being enacted. What is relevant is whether it is dampened support for corrective measures.
Now white support for measures designed to help disadvantaged minorities (e.g. affirmative action) has been declining for years. The people I read who study it (people like Lawrence Bobo) tell us that it is because they increasingly blame minorities for their situation. It is not farfetched to believe that books like The Bell Curve have added fuel to this way of thinking.
Generally, your post betrays all kinds of ignorance about the way public policy is made. To be honest, I don't have the time or the inclination to educate you. Suffice it to say, however, that public policy is more influenced by the thinking of a small number of politicians and policy types (people who work in think thanks and the like) than by anything that happens in the academy. (For you to say this after the recent turn to austerity policies, though most academic economists were against it, is a clear indication of your ignorance.) And The Bell Curve most certainly had an impact on these people.
Let me say something about why I'm saying all of this stuff, since it is apparently not obvious. I think black people have been losing the war of ideas for some time now (though the work of social scientists in the academy overwhelmingly support the conclusion that blacks are still disadvantaged in a number of ways). This thread is a call to arms, a call to join this war of ideas. It seems like for some white people, learning genetics to use against black people is almost like a kind of hobby. Well, I think we should be doing the same thing. (Also, and this kind of goes without saying, we should also study for advanced degrees in biology and related fields so that we have our people who can counter stuff like Wade's book.)
Lastly, although I called your post sophomoric, I hope you don't take it to heart. I don't know what stage you are in your education, but being sophomoric doesn't have to be a permanent condition. (I was once sophomoric, too.) As you learn more, it'll become apparent just how little you know. The key is to keep striving for knowledge.
Haha. I knew this is what it would eventually come too, this was too easy. Looks like someone couldn't handle a debate, so he like many mental midgets who bit off more than they can chew, decided to resort to flinging ad hominems I'm not even mad at you and I don't blame you, your previous posts in this thread were embedded with fallacies and incorrect information. Garnishing an incoherent, conclusory argument with ad hominems and straw-man fallacies was about what I expected of someone cut from your cloth.
It's actually fascinating to watch you belabor obvious self-evident truths like "blacks are oppressed", "blacks should strive for STEM degrees" ,"whites support for affirmative action and other government measures designed to address equality is declining" into the ground, as if every single person who clicked on this pathetic thread didn't know that. Furthermore, it's obvious that your conceptual understanding of public policy is extremely limited, it's as if you read a 1970s introductory pamphlet or a couple of wiki articles on google, never taken an actual course and think you actually have a clue about what lends impetus to public policy.
Obviously everyone saw through your drivel and sensationalized thread title designed to draw posters in this thread so you can proselytize them, so they'll adopt your ignorant and vacuous stance regarding scientific racism and public policy. You have yet to quantify your warped conjecture about the impact of the aforementioned specious books. Your claims regarding how influential these books are and their existence being "a blow to the black race" are inherently subjective.
The fact that you believe that blacks are sheep and can't stand up for ourselves against white supremacy and that we need your unsolicited "call to arms" to galvanize us to fight back, reveals your ignorance.
The fact that you think in this day and age whites are able to use new-found scientific racism legally to usurp a "race" or social group's autonomy, reveals that you have an abject lack of knowledge.
The fact that you harbor the belief that we should fear whites succumbing to their racist preconceived notions as if we're living in the 1800s, reveals that you're far too simple-minded and impressionable to issue a "call to arms" to anyone.
Here's a fair warning: the next time you start another absurd thread like this, instead of wasting my time and multiple posts politely correcting you and attempting to help you understand why everyone is flagging your posts. I'll just immediately dissect your weak ? and shred it in one post, just so I can see you -supposedly, a grown ass man- cry and whine again to other grown men on the internet about how we hurt your feelings by flagging you.
